- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:59:34 +0200
- To: Jiannan Zheng <jzheng@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Roman Shpount <rshpount@turbobridge.com>, "public-ortc@w3.org" <public-ortc@w3.org>
2014-10-23 21:25 GMT+02:00 Jiannan Zheng <jzheng@exchange.microsoft.com>: > So any objections to introducing a setter to disable aggressive nomination? Indeed it is a good to have. > A related question, to implement the WebRTC on ORTC JS shim, what’s the > recommendation for the “a=ice-options” string should we put there on the > offerer side? Will it be different depending on which ORTC implementation > the JS sits on? There is no one standarized (or even used) ICE options (ignoring "google-ice" which is just a previous version of the ICE draft), so the perfect value for "a=ice-options" in a SDP is "". -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 21:00:21 UTC